SUNITA RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an applicant for the grant of L.P.G. distributorship. She complains that in spite of her having been selected, the respondents did not allot the agency to her. Accordingly, she prays that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to make the allotment

(2.) A few facts may be noticed.

(3.) On Feb. 20, 1984, the Indian Oil Corporation advertised for allotmen of LPG distributorship. The petitioner as w II as respondent No. 5 were the applicants amongst others. They were interviewed. A merit list was prepared. On June 11, 1985, the Corporation issued a letter of intent in favour of one Vinod Kumar. The copy of this letter of allotment has been produced as Annexure P5 with the writ petition. It was inter alia mentioned that "certain complaints against you are still on investigation stage and if on enquiry into the allegations it is found that you are ineligible for distributorship, the letter of intent will be cancelled". The letter of intent was cancelled. Aggrieved by this order, Vinod Kumar filed CWP No. 5106 of 1987. It was dismissed on Jan. 18, 1988. In the meantime, the petitioner filed this writ petition, claiming that in fact she was at No. 1 in the merit list while the said Vinod Kumar was at No. 2. In spite of this, the respondents had not allotted distributor-ship to her. She also expressed an apprehension that the respondents were proceeding to re-advertise the distributorship. She complains that the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.